2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Topic: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis (Read 19137 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

March 18, 2018, 11:02:07 am

With the season just a few days away and expectations of an improved on field performance high, it is with interest that I start up this year's Jim Park Medal Thread.
Voting last year was patchy, with the votes coming from as few as 12 people one week to 24 the next. Hopefully we can perform in such a way as to make our people vote.

But I have a 1t question before I set up the spreadsheet and let it rip: do we want to retain the Jim Park Award as it is?

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #1 – March 18, 2018, 12:54:43 pm

It works fine as is. No need to change anything.

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #2 – March 18, 2018, 02:28:26 pm

The only thing I would change is to have everyone award the same votes, ie 3,2,1 or 5,4,3,2,1, but some folk like to award half votes

Keep it as it is

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #3 – March 18, 2018, 03:15:27 pm

I'd keep it 5,4,3,2,1 but get rid of the 1/2 votes.

You can hand out as many 1 votes as you like so 1/2 votes are rubbish in my opinion.

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #4 – March 19, 2018, 07:17:05 am

Leave it as it is I reckon.

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #5 – March 19, 2018, 09:45:17 am

OK. It will run as usual. No problems.

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #6 – March 20, 2018, 02:03:37 pm

It's a unique voting system that provides a lot of flexibility when voting and I like that.

The 1/2 votes really do need to go though, they are a complete farce IMO.

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #7 – March 20, 2018, 02:09:47 pm

There needs to be a limit on how many players can get votes.
10 players getting votes in 10 goal losses is just giving them out for participation.

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #8 – March 20, 2018, 02:16:12 pm

I always find it hard to vote accurately, the game goes over four quarters, but, then you have to decide who was best across the whole game. I think a quarter by quarter slide scale would be great, this would give you an accurate picture of how effective players were across the game.

Having said all this, I appreciate it takes time and probably not many people would be bothered to do it. It would be great to see how it came out though versus the 1,2,3 picks.

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #9 – March 20, 2018, 02:26:15 pm

Quote from: madbluboy – on March 20, 2018, 02:09:47 pm

There needs to be a limit on how many players can get votes.
10 players getting votes in 10 goal losses is just giving them out for participation.

I agree, for me having 1/2 votes is pointless, if you allow giving 1/2 votes then every player can get a vote! I must admit, I'm probably guility of handing out some 1/2 votes as well.

If we got rid of the 1/2 votes there would be a natural limit, and it would become much easier for the mods to tally and manage.

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #10 – March 20, 2018, 08:03:56 pm

I give more 0.5 votes and combos than anyone else. It is the way I can mix around the votes and still mention those who deserve mentioning.
Similarly, I tend to give a lot of guys votes: I am trying to reward players who deserve a mention but who miss out because they don't get 40 possessions each week. Especially our defenders who may not get much of the ball at all, but who dominate their opponents. And when we lose there are often a number of players who deserve something.

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #11 – March 20, 2018, 08:07:38 pm

I don't think i voted at all last year, but have voted heavily previously.

I like the system, including the 1/2 votes.

As crash says, it allows you to spread the votes around to more players when it is deserving.

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #12 – March 21, 2018, 10:33:00 am

I voted in all but 2 or 3 games last year and will try and do the same again. I voted 54321 each time..

just my opinion but I think it would make more sense if everyone voted the same way ? ie 321 or 54321 or whatever the majority thinks

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #13 – March 21, 2018, 08:25:31 pm

Quote from: kruddler – on March 20, 2018, 08:07:38 pm

I don't think i voted at all last year, but have voted heavily previously.

I like the system, including the 1/2 votes.

As crash says, it allows you to spread the votes around to more players when it is deserving.

Split 15 votes in half and you could have a maximum of 30 half votes. There are only 22 players on the team, that (in my humble opinion) is simply ridiculous.

It's a competition, only 1 person will win in the end (although it is interesting and entertaining to see who places in the top 10), not every player needs or deserves a participation ribbon for every game played.

Across all voters any players that deserves a vote will normally get a mention.

Re: 2018 Jim Park Medal Analysis

Reply #14 – March 21, 2018, 08:32:50 pm

Quote from: Amers – on March 21, 2018, 08:25:31 pm

Split 15 votes in half and you could have a maximum of 30 half votes. There are only 22 players on the team, that (in my humble opinion) is simply ridiculous.

It's a competition, only 1 person will win in the end (although it is interesting and entertaining to see who places in the top 10), not every player needs or deserves a participation ribbon for every game played.

Across all voters any players that deserves a vote will normally get a mention.

What would you do under this scenario.

Casboult kicks 12 goals.
Murphy and Cripps both have 30 touches and kick 2 goals.
Nobody else really stands out.

10 Casboult
2.5 Murphy
2.5 Cripps

You could argue
9 Casboult
3 Murphy
3 Cripps

...but Casboult had a 'perfect' game, so why rob him of a vote? It'd be unfair to split Cripps and Murphy as their output is identical.

Of course there is a million permutations that could go on, this is just a simplistic example to prove a point.